Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add meaningful behavioral context: the automatic camelCase boundary splitting and the x402 payment model ($0.001/call in USDC on eip155:8453), which is important for an agent to know before invoking. It still says nothing about error behavior, input limits, or return format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences plus a price note; the capability is front-loaded before the secondary behavioral and pricing details. Every clause carries information with no padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter, non-nested, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the full option space and one notable behavioral rule. The only gap is that it does not state the return shape (plain converted string), which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the enum fully enumerates the styles, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's list of display-style names (UPPER, Title, Sentence, kebab-case) adds a light mapping to the terse enum values (upper, title, sentence, kebab), but no syntax or edge-case detail beyond that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Convert) and resource (text letter cases) and enumerates all nine output styles, which is exactly what the enum offers. This clearly differentiates it from adjacent siblings like dev_number_base_converter and dev_base64_encode, which transform different data types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose makes the usage context self-evident (case transformation), and the note that 'camelCase boundaries are split automatically' hints at expected input. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of which sibling to prefer for adjacent tasks (e.g. text_chunker for splitting), so guidance is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.